Actually the real issue is scandal. Adultery and fornication can be forgiven in confession. People who persist in scandal should abstain from communion.I am confused. The Church has a sacrament,(marraige) that sacrament has responsibilities. The Church has ANOTHER sacrament (Eucharist) that one must be in a state of grace to recieve. If the Church says that a continuous sinner not in the state of grace may receive the Lord then isn’t she either contradicting the Bible and Our Lord, or lessening my sacrament of marriage?
No wonder so many of the saints were unmarried! Perhaps Paul was correct! Perhaps the greater calling is to be unmarried!
Mark 9:42“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.”
I would have thought that those who experience happy Catholic marriages would be more inclined to wish their joy on others… rather than have a ‘let them eat cake’ attitude. We have to have confidence in all those who are living in such tragic and painful situations. We must not cease “to hope against all hope” (Rom 4:18) that even those who are living in a situation that does not conform to the Lord’s will may obtain salvation from God, if they are able to persevere in prayer, penance and true love.I am confused. The Church has a sacrament,(marraige) that sacrament has responsibilities. The Church has ANOTHER sacrament (Eucharist) that one must be in a state of grace to recieve. If the Church says that a continuous sinner not in the state of grace may receive the Lord then isn’t she either contradicting the Bible and Our Lord, or lessening my sacrament of marriage?
The power to bind and loose does not include the authority to invent doctrine. The church can no more declare that a second marriage is acceptable than she can declare that it is immoral to be left handed. Morality does not change with time and place; what was immoral before is immoral now, and the church cannot change that by executive fiat.If the Church declares that a sacramental marriage is permissable for a second wife, then with the Authority of the Keys, what is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and communion can be accepted.
If morality does not change, then we can consider that God did allow the Jews to take multiple wives, and what was moral then is moral now. Would God allow His children to sin? Clearly not, neither now nor before. Clearly sin lies in the casting away of one wife and replacing her with another for selfish reasons. Not with keeping, or holding onto two.The power to bind and loose does not include the authority to invent doctrine. The church can no more declare that a second marriage is acceptable than she can declare that it is immoral to be left handed. Morality does not change with time and place; what was immoral before is immoral now, and the church cannot change that by executive fiat.
Ender
I would have thought that those who experience happy Catholic marriages would be more inclined to wish their joy on others… rather than have a ‘let them eat cake’ attitude. We have to have confidence in all those who are living in such tragic and painful situations.
I can’t help but wonder why people who have turned their backs to the Church to find comfort and support from another person (other than his spouse) would even want to step into a church, much less receive communion. It seems that the one who is left raising the kids on his/her own is the one who is truly in “tragic and painful situations.”
At this point words seem to have lost their meanings. Christ was explicit on this matter and you have pretty much emptied his words of any meaning at all beyond: I think this ought to be OK, therefore it is.If morality does not change, then we can consider that God did allow the Jews to take multiple wives, and what was moral then is moral now. Would God allow His children to sin? Clearly not, neither now nor before. Clearly sin lies in the casting away of one wife and replacing her with another for selfish reasons. Not with keeping, or holding onto two.
No, it is not, at least as far as the church is concerned.The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. (Fides et Ratio, #7)Also, morality is very much defined by men…
(CCC 553) *The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.…God has authorized the binding and the loosening of the law unto them, and what is bound or loosened by men here on earth, is also bound and loosened in heaven -as that authority was given by God.
Yes, the internal forum remains a possibility. There is one flaw, the internal forum is a personal determination of conscience on an act. The act of marriage is a precise point in time, so any analyses via the internal forum would have to have been consistent throughout the marriage, as the moment itself is unchanged.There may be nuances that “surprise” the rigid conformist as the synod continues its work. For instance, take your remark …
The church needs to define what constitutes a “valid” spouse. There is being considered the “internal forum” judgment of the parties whereby there is an absolute certainty placed in their conscience by God Himself after much earnest prayer, assuring them their first marriage was invalid. Yet for varying reasons due to human limitations, proof of that may not be available through the tribunal process. What are these folks to do, when they are the innocent party without adequate proof??
- Marriage cannot be attempted while one’s **valid **spouse remains alive.
You’re speaking about the invalid first marriage and the couple in the second marriage being assured by God that it was invalid? I don’t see how reflection on the honeymoon or any weeks thereafter would make any difference. The sacrament can only be analyzed at the moment of the marriage.Yes, the internal forum remains a possibility. There is one flaw, the internal forum is a personal determination of conscience on an act. The act of marriage is a precise point in time, so any analyses via the internal forum would have to have been consistent throughout the marriage, as the moment itself is unchanged.
The obvious solution would be to have the couple analyze the moment of marriage during the honeymoon, or within a few weeks afterward. By definition, the internal forum will achieve the same result, if the parties understand what the internal forum actually is and how marriage is contracted…
Consider this: if the Canon Law states that Baptism may not be offered to a child whose parents have no intention on raising that child Catholic, yet a priest decides to baptize that child anyway, then that priest has taken immoral action -because the laws are binding, and he knowingly broke that law. He would need to confess that sin.At this point words seem to have lost their meanings. Christ was explicit on this matter and you have pretty much emptied his words of any meaning at all beyond: I think this ought to be OK, therefore it is.
No, it is not, at least as far as the church is concerned.The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. (Fides et Ratio, #7)
…the truth made known to us by Revelation is neither the product nor the consummation of an argument devised by human reason. (Ibid, #15)
…the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. (Veritatis Splendor, #35)*
As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm…The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm*. (Ibid, #95)
(CCC 553) *The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.
*Pronouncing doctrinal judgements is not the same as inventing moral laws. The church gets to determine what she believes God has revealed, but she has no authority whatever to decide what ought to be true.
Ender
Correct, and that is known at the moment of marriage.You’re speaking about the invalid first marriage and the couple in the second marriage being assured by God that it was invalid? I don’t see how reflection on the honeymoon or any weeks thereafter would make any difference. The sacrament can only be analyzed at the moment of the marriage.
For instance, Pope Benedict has stated, that if faith in the sacrament was missing at the time of the marriage, that in itself could invalidate it. Numerous couples marry for the sake of the nice ceremony in church, to please parents, etc. There is little regard for the sacrament itself, and often couples leave church right after the wedding. No real commitment to live the faith – a clear case of invalidity, permitting the use of internal forum solution, since they alone know the intention that was present when the vows were exchanged.
Maybe you misunderstood me, so I take the blame for not being more precise. At the time the couple marry in the Catholic Church, there needs to be faith in the sacrament and an intent to live the marriage in permanent covenant relationship. That is not the case,when the couple just likes a pretty church marriage rather than go to a courthouse, and they have no concept of the sacrament. If they did, they would then “live the faith” of their marriage in their daily lives afterwards.And there is no requirement by the Church that a marriage must have an intent to live ‘the faith’; two atheists can validly contract marriage, or two Jews or two Unitarians. Such marriages does not confer Sacramental Graces, but** they are valid and binding marriages**.
Show one Divinely Revealed doctrine that states that having two wives is intrinsically evil. Not a canon (changable) law, but a revealed doctrine.
I expect the spouse that was abandoned is more likely to show up on the steps of the church, not the other person. Thats just a gut feeling though.I can’t help but wonder why people who have turned their backs to the Church to find comfort and support from another person (other than his spouse) would even want to step into a church, much less receive communion. It seems that the one who is left raising the kids on his/her own is the one who is truly in “tragic and painful situations.”
Thank you ,I did not know that !Actually, that is a mistranslation. Jesus never gave anyone permission to divorce if they commit adultery.
That would mean that any man who’s tired of his current wife and wants to get a divorce with the “permission” of Jesus just has to cheat on her, and then he can say, “Hey! Jesus gave me permission to divorce you now!”
No.
That’s absurd, right?
The Greek word for “adultery” is: moicheia.
The word that is in the NT is: porneia.
Porneia is more properly translated to “illicit union”.
Please see this article for more info:
catholic.com/quickquestions/if-jesus-made-an-exception-for-divorce-in-cases-of-adultery-why-doesnt-the-church
Notice the word “lawful”. These counsels represent the Church laying down the current laws that we see in Canon law today. Canon law has changed throughout history, and will continue to change, which is why we still have a Pope, and why the Keys were not given temporarily but permanent until Jesus’ return. But by no means can Divine Revelation be the result of a Counsel or a Synod. Divine Revelation is the direct teaching of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, it is our Deposit of Faith, from which we apply to our lives. The Deposit of faith outlines Truth, and it can never change.For if it were lawful for a man to have several wives, there is no reason why he who takes to himself a second wife, along with the wife he already has, should be regarded as more guilty of adultery than if he had dismissed his first wife and taken a second. (Council of Trent)
- …it is not lawful* to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual. (Council of Florence)
Ender
:curtsey:Thank you ,I did not know that !
God Bless
The business of marriage failure is not always so cut and dried as to be fully make one blameless despite their heroic commitment to family after divorce. Many people marry ‘without faith’ and feel secure by virtue of the ‘piece of paper’. Yes, one party will often seem like a perpetrator and the other a victim, but often that only tells a superficial story of their marriage.I can’t help but wonder why people who have turned their backs to the Church to find comfort and support from another person (other than his spouse) would even want to step into a church, much less receive communion. It seems that the one who is left raising the kids on his/her own is the one who is truly in “tragic and painful situations.”
I thought you said (in a thread on capital punishment) that the Catholic Church did change its teaching on capital punishment as the teaching in the 1997 catechism was different from the previous teaching in the 1992 catechism?Morality does not change with time and place; what was immoral before is immoral now, and the church cannot change that by executive fiat.
Ender